Pentagon and others manipulate social media to shape opinion on Security State.

[Electric Monk]

(cross-posting from GD, originally posted by Aerows)

If you ever get the feeling that you are getting a hard sell on the security state, military adventures, the alphabet soup agencies, and everyone in the supply chain that profits off of war, spying, and all of the above, you are.

This has been repeatedly detailed.

Heck, Google Palantir. That will get you started. If you'd rather a sampling, however, here are some.

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/07/pentagon-seeks-to-manipulate-social-media-for-propaganda-purposes.html

Cass Sunstein's Nefarious Plans

In case you didn't like the first one

Then there are these types of tactics:

How to disrupt a forum discussion

How about Karl Rove's Guide to Effective Blogging

And on, and on and on.

To preclude the absolute FIRST argument I'm going to get in this thread, I'll refer to the rules of web disruption,

5. Pretend that alternative media – such as blogs written by experts in their fields, without any middleman – are untrustworthy or are motivated solely by money (for example, use the derogatory term “blogspam” for any blog posting, pretending that there is no original or insightful reporting, but that the person is simply doing it for ad revenue).

I didn't link to the intercept, either, but they certainly have a lot of detailed information on this, too - but I figured I'd cut that off at the pass, as it were.

Do you recognize anyone using these tactics? It's similar to Sibelian's how to tell if someone is wasting my time. They are, and doing a lot more.

[Pholus]

1. One poster over at www.schneier.com fit this bill.

Bruce Schneier is a computer security expert who got interested in real-world security systems after 9/11. He is also a board member of the Electronic Frontier Foundation. His book: "Beyond Fear -- Thinking Sensibly about Security" was a must read about all the things that the security state that Bush created did for no purpose other than to "appear" to be in control. I believe he coined the term "Security Theater" to explain these things -- a term that now had wide usage.

Anyway, he had a long-time poster in his blog's comments section, "Skeptical," who was 100% the government party line on all electronic issues. Skeptical was usually VERY quick to post (no more than a few hours consistently and minutes sometimes) and always had long talking points prepared. He especially got worked up about all things Snowden and arguments about how government backdoors in consumer electronics actually INCREASE risks for the average citizen.

Example thread: https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2014/10/more_crypto_war.html

I (and many others who read that blog) could never shake the feeling this poster was an example of the social media operation you describe.

He eventually disappeared in late 2014 (https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2014/11/economic_failur.html), many regular posters hypothesized that it was because his arguments usually drew quick and thorough rebuttals that actually made the governments' position on many computer issues look worse.

[Chimeradog]

2. yes...

on a different forum, its the reason a "real" person like me stopped engaging...I was speaking to a wall of Koch shills...what's the point?

jmo, the element of trust when writing on forums is important to me...I respect integrity and people who stand up for what is right, what they believe, etc.....

However if they all go the way of FB, and agenda/paid shills, I am done.

I'd rather speak at a conference than try and reason with paid robots.

[Judi Lynn]

3. Interesting. Thank you. n/t

[fleabiscuit]

4. Kick (The 15 Rules of Web Disruption)